Mixing
How did succession in Anglo Saxon England work?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?
For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.
The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?
england royalty royal-succession anglo-saxons
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?
For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.
The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?
england royalty royal-succession anglo-saxons
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?
For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.
The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?
england royalty royal-succession anglo-saxons
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?
For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.
The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?
england royalty royal-succession anglo-saxons
england royalty royal-succession anglo-saxons
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
asked 2 hours ago
Jacob Harrison
112
112
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.
It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:
No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.
- Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole
The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât.
We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.
If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.
No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
necks.
(Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)
This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.
In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.
In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
king.
Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.
It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:
No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.
- Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole
The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât.
We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.
If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.
It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:
No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.
- Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole
The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât.
We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.
If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.
It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:
No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.
- Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole
The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât.
We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.
If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.
It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:
No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.
- Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole
The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena Ä¡emÃ…Ât.
We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.
If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
answered 1 hour ago
sempaiscuba♦
43.3k4152193
43.3k4152193
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.
No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
necks.
(Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)
This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.
In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.
In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
king.
Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.
No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
necks.
(Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)
This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.
In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.
In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
king.
Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.
No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
necks.
(Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)
This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.
In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.
In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
king.
Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.
No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
necks.
(Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)
This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.
In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.
In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
king.
Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
edited 23 mins ago
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
answered 46 mins ago
T.E.D.♦
71.8k9157291
71.8k9157291
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49193%2fhow-did-succession-in-anglo-saxon-england-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
